Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1003 (GUJ)

Bharucha v. Vishwanathbabu Patil

2019-10-21

SONIA GOKANI

body2019
ORDER : Sonia Gokani, J. 1. The petitioner is before this Court, seeking following reliefs: "22. … (A) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the orders passed by the labour court dated 23.6.2014 and 12.12.2014 in T-application No. 615/2008 as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, non-application of mind and be pleased to quash and set aside the same and further be pleased to declare that the Industrial Court also has failed to exercise jurisdiction in revision application by not interfering with the order passed by the labour court and hence be pleased to set aside all the three order of court below. (B) Pending admission and final disposal of the application, be pleased to suspend the implementation and operation of the order passed by the labour court dated 23.6.2014 in T-Application and order dated 12.12.2014 on Exhibit-28 and the order passed by the Industrial Court dated 1.12.2017 in revision application. (C) Pending admission and final disposal of the present petition, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay the proceedings of the contempt application and restrain to stay the proceedings of the contempt application and restrain respondent no. 1 from taking any coercive action against the petitioner in reference to the orders in reference to the orders in T-Application. (D) ..." 2. On issuance of notice, the other side has put-in appearance. 3. This Court has heard the learned Advocate, Ms. Kamani, with learned Advocate, Mr. Pathak, for the petitioner and learned Advocate, Mr. Mishra, for the respondent. 4. It is pointed out to this Court that in a group of petitions being Special Civil Application No. 6585 of 2018 and the allied matters, in case of the similarly situated persons has passed an order, and therefore, the case of the petitioner shall also be governed by the very decision. 5. Learned Advocate, Mr. Mishra, appearing for the respondent is not in a position to offer resistance to this proposition. 6. Considering the submissions made and also bearing in mind the details, it would be apt to reproduce the order passed by this Court (Coram: Mr. Biren Vaishnav, J.), which read thus: 1. 5. Learned Advocate, Mr. Mishra, appearing for the respondent is not in a position to offer resistance to this proposition. 6. Considering the submissions made and also bearing in mind the details, it would be apt to reproduce the order passed by this Court (Coram: Mr. Biren Vaishnav, J.), which read thus: 1. In all these petitions, the prayer of the petitioners is to declare the order passed by the Labour Court dated 23.06.2014 and the order dated 12.12.2017 passed in Revision Applications in pending T Applications as illegal. 2. The facts in brief are as under (Facts of Special Civil Application No. 6585 of 2018 are taken for the sake of convenience): 2.1 The respondent workman had approached the Labour Court by filing T-Application No. 612 of 2008 challenging his termination. During the pendency of this application, the workman moved application Ex. 17 before the Labour Court under Section 119 (d) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (for short 'the BIR Act'). 2.2. Perusal of the application indicates that the workman found that his rights to the fruits of the litigation in the event he succeeds, shall be frustrated if the machines and the properties of the employer are sold. Reading of paragraph no. 3 of the application further indicates that the workman found that there was a concerted attempt on the part of the employer to alienate the properties in question. In the background of this application so filed, the Labour Court passed an order dated 23.06.2014 below Ex. 17 that the employer give bank guarantee of Rs. 5 lakhs. Aggrieved by this order, the employer filed an application at Ex. 25 for modification of order of bank guarantee. 2.3. The Labour Court by order dated 12.12.2014 did not modify the order and the order directing the employer to furnish the bank guarantee continued. Aggrieved by the same, the employer again approached the Industrial Tribunal by filing Revision Application No. 2 of 2017 requesting for modification. The said revision application was rejected. Hence the present petitions are filed. 3. Mr. P.H. Pathak, learned advocate for the petitioners drew my attention to page 29 Annexure 'C' to contend that a specific statement was made before the Labour Court that they undertake not to alienate the lands pending adjudication of the T Applications and therefore that is sufficient enough to protect the rights of the workmen. 3. Mr. P.H. Pathak, learned advocate for the petitioners drew my attention to page 29 Annexure 'C' to contend that a specific statement was made before the Labour Court that they undertake not to alienate the lands pending adjudication of the T Applications and therefore that is sufficient enough to protect the rights of the workmen. In his submission, despite the specific undertaking so given, the orders were not modified. He submitted that even the reasons assigned by the Revisional Court would indicate that the Revisional Court has considered the stand of the employer in giving an undertaking that it would not alienate the land. 3.1. Mr. Pathak would contend that considering the fact that the land has substantial value and appreciates day to day, an undertaking not to alienate the properties would suffice in protecting the rights of the employees workmen. He submitted that the Labour Court has no powers to pass orders interim in nature under Section 119D under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act. 4. Mr. Mishra, learned advocate for the respondent has invited my attention to the affidavit-in-reply to suggest that the employer has already transferred the property by a lease agreement. 5. Perusal of the order granting bank guarantee would indicate at page 33 that what the trial Court did was that certain machineries such as 4 generator sets, 3 Zero machines, 2 Folding Machines and 12 Jet Dyeing Machines etc were ordered to be kept and a direction was issued not to alienate them. It is in this background that the revisional Court found that at best what was directed by the Labour Court to maintain status quo was of machineries. 5.1. In addition thereto the Labour Court exercised powers under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act. Mr. Pathak contended that the Tribunal would have no powers to pass orders interim in nature under Section 119D under the Gujarat Industrial Relations Act. It will be in the fitness of things to reproduce Section 119D of the Act which reads as under: "119D: If any proceeding before it under this Act, the Industrial Court, a Labour Court, or a Wage Board may pass such interim orders as it may consider just and proper." 5.2. Reading of the section would indicate that the Tribunal has powers to pass "such interim orders as it may consider just and proper". Reading of the section would indicate that the Tribunal has powers to pass "such interim orders as it may consider just and proper". Perusal of the orders under challenge which are interim in nature would indicate that once the authorities below have come to the conclusion that it was just and proper for the Court to restrain the employer from alienating the machines pending the T-Application. 5.3. Perusal of the order dated 23.06.2014 passed by the Labour Court below Ex. 17 indicates that the Labour Court came to the conclusion that in the event the employer is permitted to alienate the properties and the machinery, the workmen's rights would be adversely affected in the event pending T Applications are considered. Moreover, considering the averments made in the affidavit-in-reply, the fact that the assurance is given by the employer that it will not alienate the land in question does not inspire confidence. I, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the impugned orders. 6. The petitions are required to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. However, while examining the petitions so filed by the employer, the Labour Court, Surat is requested to expedite the hearing and decide the T Applications pending before it as expeditiously as possible preferably within six months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. However, the undertaking given before this Court while issuing notice shall continue till final disposal of the T-Applications and no coercive actions to be taken by the workmen till then. No costs." DISPOSED OFF, accordingly. 7. In wake of the above, the case of the petitioner, herein, shall also be governed by the above decision. If, the applications are already decided as directed in the above referred order, there shall be no requirement of fresh direction of undertaking extended till disposal of T-Application. However, if, the same has not been decided, let the undertakings of petitioner continue till final disposal of the same and so no coercive action shall be taken by the workmen, till then. This petition stands DISPOSED OFF, accordingly. No order as to costs.